From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edwards v. City of Houston

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 15, 1995
49 F.3d 1048 (5th Cir. 1995)

Opinion

Nos. 93-2315, 93-2476.

March 15, 1995.

Clinard J. Hanby, Essmyer Hanby, Houston, TX, for Hughes.

Joan M. Lucci Bain, Houston, TX, for Houston Police.

Jacqueline E. Medlock, Houston, TX, for Medlock, Humphrey, Field and Green.

O.F. Jones, III, Victoria, TX, for amicus curiae.

John E. Fisher, Benjamin L. Hall, III, City Attys., Houston, TX, for City of Houston.

Richard T. Seymour and Sharon R. Vinick, Lawyers' Committee for Civ. Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, for Dorothy Edwards, et al.

Fred A. Keyes, Jr., Gen. Council, Houston Police Officers Ass'n., Houston, TX, for Elder and Clark and Houston Police Officers Ass'n.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; Lynn N. Hughes, Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion November 10, 1994, 5 Cir., 1994, 37 F.3d 1097)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, DUHE, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Judge Smith is recused and did not participate in this decision.


A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.


Summaries of

Edwards v. City of Houston

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 15, 1995
49 F.3d 1048 (5th Cir. 1995)
Case details for

Edwards v. City of Houston

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY A. EDWARDS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. CITY OF HOUSTON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Mar 15, 1995

Citations

49 F.3d 1048 (5th Cir. 1995)